“In conversations with aides over the past weeks, Trump has questioned why he must attend”, CNN said Friday, citing people familiar with the conversations. “After the past two G7 summits ended acrimoniously, Trump complained about attending a third, saying he didn’t view the gathering as a particularly productive use of his time”, the network added.

You hardly need to be a CNN fan to know that’s likely true. Trump is notoriously skeptical of multilateral summits, especially those involving America’s traditional allies.

With things having gone decidedly awry on the home front over the past couple of days (the stock market fell for a fourth consecutive week amid trade tensions and concerns are mounting about a possible US recession), the president was almost assuredly irritated about the prospect of flying to France to chat with leaders who, for the most part, do not share his world view. The European powers aren’t enamored with Trump’s stance on Iran, nor are they particularly excited about his adversarial approach to trade, which has weighed heavily on the European economy.

Fast forward to Saturday and, sure enough, US officials have accused the French of attempting to embarrass Trump.

Specifically, the US says Emmanuel Macron set an agenda designed around “niche” issues, in a bid to bolster his image domestically. And you can trust the US side on that, because if there’s anything the Trump administration knows about, it’s magnifying whatever issues the president thinks will bolster his image among the base.

So, what exactly are these “niche” issues the US says Macron is unjustifiably emphasizing?

Well, the fate of humanity on the planet Earth, for one. “Macron has built the agenda around a series of issues, such as climate change and inequality”, Bloomberg writes, adding that if you ask the Trump administration, that “strays from the G-7’s founding nature as an economic bloc”.

Maybe, but it also “strays” from areas where Trump’s track record is horrendous, which perhaps goes a long towards explaining why the administration would rather nobody talks about such things.

According to sources who spoke to Bloomberg, the US says France brushed aside Trump’s “input” on the climate and inequality, and that “the original summit schedule said little or nothing about trade and the global economy”.

Paris will be forgiven if they did summarily ignore Trump’s opinion on climate change. After all, he pulled the US out of a global accord named after the city. He’s also gutted the EPA and is prone to trafficking in anti-science agitprop.

As far as inequality goes, let’s just say the president’s domestic track record is dubious. His tax cuts exacerbated the wealth divide at the expense of the people he ostensibly campaigned to help (i.e., the working class), and as far as “other” kinds of inequality goes, suffice to say Trump isn’t known as a unifier.

As to whether France is actually attempting to avoid talking about the economy and trade, Trump should thank them if that’s the case. The US is about to import an economic downturn for the first time in history and the proximate cause of the global factory malaise is US trade policy. Considering Trump has shown no willingness to back down on the trade war, and continues to insist that the media is deliberately amplifying recession worries, maybe some respite from those issues is just what he needs. (Also, IHS Markit’s PMIs for France are actually more favorable than those for the US after this week’s numbers.)

Of course, Trump officials are probably exaggerating the whole thing. In fact, as Bloomberg goes on to note, “Macron’s office [said] the very first session is on trade, the economy and security and has been planned that way for weeks”.

Advertisements

8 comments on “US Officials Say G-7 Rigged, Focuses Too Much On ‘Niche’ Issues Like The Future Of The Planet”

See, there’s your problem, “officials.” The US has no officials. Kissinger was an official. Even when people didn’t agree with him, they listened to him. He had “gravitas.” Not a single person in US government today, on either side of the aisle, has any real gravitas. We have no “officials.” Except for Elaine Chao, even our cabinet members are mostly interim because Trump can’t get appointments through the Senate (Chao is married to McConnell so she sailed through, though not having been born in the US, she can’t be President.) Some parts of the government have “bosses,” but we have no officials, except maybe Kudlow, lol?

Oh Lordy, the USA is a shell of itself, the shingles are being blown off by a light breeze and the siding is unpainted and out of square. Just read the history of the Roman Empire and you will see us. The barbarians are at the border and we don’t want to see them, we just want our fix of “cheap $$$” and to be told how great we are. Debt. That’s our game and we are good at it, we have taught the world well. Now the whole stinking place is ready to blow-up in the biggest debt bomb ever known.

Since the day he was “elected” I believed trump would play out the narrative of being USA’s Niro burning down the first American republic and laughing while he watches. Is there any doubt that there will be a constitutional convention in the next 10 years with vast changes ushering in the second republic? I just don’t see the current constitution remaining intact after a foreign agent was placed at the head of the government in collaboration with the party controlling the Legislature. Seems like a glaring hole in the process of self governance.

Well, let’s see. The ocean’s are so full of plastic waste we need to learn how to cook it and eat it to survive. The oxygen level in the atmosphere is dropping and the oxygen generator is on fire. (That can’t be good). The Ebola crisis won’t go away and just seems to get worse every time it rears it’s head. Forest fires and hurricanes are increasing in their fury. The oceans are rising. And chaos is the only thing which seems to be something to bet on with confidence. If the Trump is re-elected you know it’s all going to get better?? right?? Where the hell are the Republicans??

The Supreme Court majority pointed out that the President’s power must stem from an action of Congress or the Constitution.[44] In this case, there was no expressed or implied statutory authority for the President to commit such an action, so the government relied on implied constitutional power.[45] The majority rejected this argument by finding that the Take Care Clause “refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker” and that it is solely the duty of Congress to deal with policy making.[46] The Court affirmed the district court’s decision with the effect of invalidating President Truman’s steel seizure order.[47]

“[e]xtraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers nor justify the exercise of unauthorized powers.”[243] The Framers expressly rejected the idea that the Executive should have exclusive emergency powers based on their experience.[244] It is essential that during times of national emergency, our three-branch-system functions properly.

For the national emergency in this circumstance to be upheld, the analysis would turn on whether the President has expressed authority over emergencies from the Constitution.[245] Because there are no enumerated emergency powers conferred upon the Executive Branch, the national emergency could not be upheld.[246] The President could not rely on his implied emergency powers to uphold the national emergency which has been determined by the third tier of Justice Jackson’s framework.[247] Thus, presidential attempts to circumvent the proposed amendment through the use of a national emergency would fail in court.